Global Warming: Who Are The Deniers Now?

Global warming is “settled science,” we hear all the time. Those who reject that idea are “deniers.” But as new evidence trickles out from peer-reviewed scientific studies, the legs beneath the climate change hypothesis — that the Earth was doing just fine until carbon dioxide-spewing human beings came along — is increasingly wobbly.

A new study published in the journal Nature Geoscience purports to support action by global governments to reduce carbon dioxide output in order to lower potential global warming over the next 100 years or so. But what it really does is undercut virtually every modern argument for taking radical action against warming.

And, of course, he’s quite right. As we’ve noted here numerous times, the much-feared “global warming” trend seems to have halted somewhere around 1998. We know this is true because of satellite temperature readings — the most accurate temperature gauge since it takes in the entire atmosphere, not just parts of it — show there’s been virtually no change.

Based on the U.N.’s models, temperatures should have been shooting up sharply starting in about 1995. By this year, model temperatures show we should have had just under a 1.0-degree centigrade rise in temperature, a significant temperature spike in what is, in geological time, an extremely short period. It was those models that were used to sell the world on the idea that we needed a drastic reordering of our global economic priorities immediately.

The reality: virtually no change in temperature. Put simply, the models are wrong.

And yet, advocates of the global warming dogma continue to ruin the careers of scientific apostates and hurl insults like calling skeptics “deniers” — which likens those who disagree about global warming science to those who “deny” the existence of the Holocaust — while denying painfully obvious facts about “climate change.”

As we noted back in May, we noted that the Sunday Telegraph of Britain had reported that temperatures had dropped sharply early this year following the supposed “hottest year on record” in 2016. How could that be? 2016 was an El Niño year, which is always unusually hot.

“In recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more than 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño.” Not only that, but despite doom-and-gloom prognostications by global warming’s biased, bought-and-paid-for “scientist” forecasters, ice in the Arctic and Greenland both grew this year.

Recent revisions of climate data have all been in one direction: Older data have been revised to show cooler temperatures, more recent ones, warmer temperatures. Statistics would suggest that random errors would be not all in one direction.

So it looks suspiciously like scientist-statisticians who are getting big fat checks from governments that have every interest in selling the idea of inevitable and disastrous global warming are, if you will, cooking the books.

This might be merely an academic dispute if not for one thing: To remediate it, the United Nations and a legion of scientists around the world riding the global warming gravy train are seeking to have the world spend 2% of its GDP just to slow climate change.

That’s about $1.5 trillion a year, at current levels of world GDP, an enormous amount. And most of it would come from the U.S. and a small handful of other rich nations. A huge tax on you to remedy a phantom threat, in short.

No one doubts the climate is changing. That’s why it’s called “climate,” not “stasis.” The scientific knowledge of climate is still in its infancy.

But now that we have further evidence in the form of another peer-reviewed study that shows the global warming models are flawed at best, fraudulent at worst, we do agree with global warming advocates on one thing: We need to take action.

So once again, we call on President Trump to pull out of the Paris Agreement on climate change. That bad deal won’t change the climate one bit, but it will hurt the world economy and lower Americans’ standard of living.

Be Social:

Related

Comments (3)

Sonnyhill

Million$ were spent putting those satellites in orbit. They have the best vantage point to take temperature readings. If the CO2 in the atmosphere is driving temperatures higher, take the atmosphere’s temperature, not polar ice caps. Anyone who ignores or refutes those readings is willfully blind, and wants the public blinded from reality.

Spurwing Plover

And dispite what we have gotten from the satellites the blabbering green wackos want us to ignore the data and only listen to their mindles Eco-Babbble bull twaddle and mumbo jumbo of how we must return to living a miserble primative life make a month;y sacfarice of a virgins and children and to obey gaia

Hello, just wanted to leave a note on the site to share the great experience that was had with the above program. There was brilliant coverage off the back of this. Fantastic customer support, great program and would absolutely work with them again. Check out the link to see the benefits for yourself.